Monday, November 26, 2012

UKIP fruitcakes and racist Tories

Some years ago, Conservative leader Michael Howard dismissed UKIP members as 'cranks and gadflies'. David Cameron more recently went a step further, calling them 'fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly' (- we will return to that 'mostly'). As UKIP continues to rise in the polls - merrily surfing a perfect wave of economic meltdown in the Eurozone; concern over judicial activism in the European Court of Human Rights; and widespread disillusionment with the main political parties - the Conservative Party must choose whether to ignore or engage with this populist phenomenon; whether to respect or disparage its political agenda and programme for government.

Daniel Hannan MEP has long advocated some sort of electoral pact: "Few Conservatives disagree with UKIP policies," he writes. "Sixty-two per cent of Tory voters and 78 per cent of party members want a free trade deal with the EU rather than full membership. Most look just as kindly on Nigel Farage's domestic agenda: tax cuts, grammar schools, localism, withdrawal from the ECHR. Their complaint is that, by standing candidates at local and parliamentary level, UKIP, without winning seats itself, keeps allowing Leftie Europhiles to be elected."

It is a theme taken up today by Michael Fabricant MP: "The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) is now a significant contributory factor in costing the Conservative Party victories in marginal seats," his report says. "It is time to consider actively whether a rapprochement might be possible before the 2015 general election."

The deal proposed appears to be a referendum in the run up to 2015 (ie this side of the General Election) and, in return, UKIP would not field candidates against Conservative candidates in their target marginal seats.

This is attractive, but would probably divide UKIP: many members would relish a pre-2015 referendum, as opposed to some vague 'cast-iron guarantee' of one after the election... should the Tories win, and should the referendum commitment not be sacrificed on the altar of another coalition agreement. But equally many UKIP members would be reluctant to give pro-EU Tories a free run in their target marginals: the party, they would say, is no longer a single-issue pressure group, but a credible, mainstream political party advocating inter alia selective education, low taxes, capped immigration and (not insignificantly) opposition to same-sex marriage.

The problem is that the Prime Minister is of the view that UKIP members are racist - mostly. No10 appeared to withdraw this allegation over the weekend, in the wake of the Rotherham fostering scandal (when Michael Gove referred to UKIP as 'mainstream'). But then the retraction was retracted, and Cameron's prior assertion reiterated: UKIP is indeed racist - mostly.

This qualifying 'mostly' is important, for it is an expression of quantifiable majority. Cameron is making explicit the belief alluded to by former Chairman Baroness Warsi, who alleged last May that there was a correlation between the rise of UKIP and the decline of the BNP. There appears to be a widely-held belief among senior Conservatives that UKIP is, to quote Avenue Q, 'a little bit racist'.

His Grace wishes to be frank..

He has spoken at many UKIP gatherings over the years, despite being known to be involved with and committed to the Conservative cause. And he has met the odd crank and gadfly at these gatherings, who more often than not berate him for his determination to remain a Conservative even as his party ceases to be so. He has also encountered the occasional fruitcake, the odd loony, and one or two racists - not overly closeted; more out and proud. Their target is often Muslims, as opposed to Islam, though they never appear to know any and their knowledge of the Qur'an is based on a Daily Mail theological exegesis. And they also appear to want to belong to a nation rather more mono-ethnic than the one they manifestly inhabit, preferably led by Churchill (or Thatcher, at a push), in which everyone plays cricket, drinks warm beer and goes to Church (preferably the CofE).

Of course a few UKIP members are racist, despite it being constitutionally a non-racist party. But then there are avowedly non-racist members of the BNP, who simply believe that it's the only party prepared to tackle an unwanted tide of immigration. And there are one or two racists in the Labour Party, too, whom Gordon Brown identifies as 'bigoted'. It's probably not possible to be a racist LibDem, but the Avenue Q factor is doubtless still in play.

His Grace happens to know one or two racist Conservatives, as well. In conversation a few years ago, one (a peer) referred to a colleague as 'the nigger in the woodpile'. And another (an MP) said he was 'sick of hearing about Muslims'. Now, you might say, these were merely private conversations, and so completely without proof. Further, you might argue that the first of these is a common turn of phrase - unpleasant and ignorant usage, perhaps, but nothing more. And the second expression is a feeling with which the majority of the country might sympathise: you don't have to be racist to have had enough of the media's obsession with Islam and Muslims, not least because Islam is not ethnically defined.

But His Grace also has in his possession an email from a senior (professional) figure within the Conservative Party in which he refers disparagingly to 'the Asian tribes of (insert town)'. The juxtaposition of 'Asian' with 'tribe' is manifestly derogatory in the context, conveying nothing but contempt for the primitive Asian instinct with an inference of inferior intellect and understanding.

Of course, the existence of such proof of racism within a solitary email ought not to tarnish an entire political party. But the Prime Minister has never adduced any evidence that UKIP is made up of racists 'mostly'. Might it not simply be that both UKIP and the Conservatives are racist rarely, and allegations to the contrary are just part of the fractious turf-war between two mainstream right-wing parties vying for supremacy?

David Cameron should realise that his style of leadership alienates traditional Conservative voters. He implies we are toxic because we don't follow his "programme". The BBC is now willingly talking, at every turn, of the party being "detoxified" as if some terrible poison had entered its heart.

Truth is that there is a poison and its the old bully tactic of "My way or the highway".

My instincts, as a result of mixing with people of all sorts of politics, nationalities and religions when I was working, tells me that racist people are probably quite evenly spread through the community, and that the percentage of racists in all the parties is probably similar. If anything, I would suggest it is probably highest among the working class vote which supports Labour.

Your Grace, your communicant is always impressed by a saying attributed to our American cousins, ' When you've got them by the b*lls, their hearts and minds will follow'.

So it is with the Conservatives and UKIP. In this instance Mr Farage has a very firm grip on Mr Cameron. That being the case, why on earth would Mr Farage let go?

Accepting Tory offers of coalition, partnership, whatever, would be a fatal error for UKIP, and one that Mr Farage is to clever to make. UKIP only need to keep doing what is clearly popular with their supporters and at some point, repesentation will flow to the party.

UKIP should not be afraid of success and has no need to accept Tory terms. Why deal with people who hold you in contempt when you've got them on the run?

Politics is Darwinian. If the Conservative party has reached an evolutionary dead-end, as it appears, then it will become extinct. It possible that Cameron will wake up one morning in 2015 to find that the Lib-Dims have eloped with Milipede and the Tory rebels have been seduced by Farage.

"turf-war between two mainstream right-wing parties vying for supremacy". I'm not aware there are TWO mainstream "right-wing" parties. There's UKIP, yes. Surely the other three "mainstream" parties are all lib-left (2 of which are in government)

Why would anyone in Scotland vote for a party headed by a man who is a member of a Parliamentary committee on fisheries which amends fisheries legislation but, despite taking the salary and expenses, has failed to attend the committee for two years?

A belief in nationhood and border controls is not racist. Nations are a God-ordained institution - Acts 17:26. For 2000 years from the time of Abraham God used a specific nation as the medium to unfold His plan of salvation. Respect for national boundaries is plainly taught in Numbers 20:17. Not only the mainstream political parties, but also the mainstream churches, have been gravely in error in their approach to the whole issue of immigration.Rev Peter Simpson, Penn Free Methodist Church.

I wouldn't be so sure. I remember having conversations with very PC types at work who prided themselves on their "anti-racist" views but nevertheless were very scornful of Americans who lived in what they called "Flyover Country" - i.e. the central part of the USA.

They assumed that the people on the east and west coasts of America were nice civilised types and that those in the rest of the country were ignorant bigots. However if anyone had talked about inhabitants of a large part of almost any other country in such a way they would certainly have accused him/her of holding racist views.

Of course not all PC types support the LibDems but the vast majority of committed LibDem supporters are PC types. (That doesn't include people who might vote LibDem because they are impressed by a local candidate or because they are voting tactically).

One of the nice things about being a PC type is that you know that you are a good person and that the people who disagree with you are "nasty."

Of course similar accusations have been made, sometimes justifiably, against Christians who assume that simply holding the "correct" doctrine makes them immune to phariseeism.

I am sure some of the Kippers are on the fringe, but mostly are of the libertarian philosophy and quite open in many ways, for example I think in one of the leadership elections a gay woman stood as a candidate and came third in the poll.

Ironic that we read several people here saying they'll vote Kipper, as this would probably clash with the 'socially conservative' outlook. Personally I think that the ssm stance is a bandwagon to gain votes from dissident Tories, who might otherwise be put off voting for them.

"If you want to hear some really racist views just spend an evening drinking in a northern or midlands Labour Club."

Or, alternatively, just brouse through some of the comments on this blog that are posted from time to time.

Peter Simpson said...

"A belief in nationhood and border controls is not racist. Nations are a God-ordained institution"

True but time moves on and the world changes. Besides, have you informed your USA conservative evangelicals of this? They must move out immediately and return the land to the Native Indians. Same with Australia and New Zealand.

"Respect for national boundaries is plainly taught in Numbers 20:17."

Agreed.

"Not only the mainstream political parties, but also the mainstream churches, have been gravely in error in their approach to the whole issue of immigration."

Now that is a political opinion, not a theological one and I tend to agree it has been mismanaged particularly with regard to Europe and we have lost control.

However, if you're basing this opinion on the bible you will have to demonstrate how it contradicts scripture. The passage you have cited hardly does so.

Tell me, do you have many immigrants attending your services in Buckinghamshire Reverend? And do you tell them to return to the lands from hence they came?

In the absence of a UKIP candidate in my constituency come the next general election then my reaction will be to add a box at the bottom of the ballot paper declaring None of the above.

If UKIP sells out to the Not-the-Tories in such a fashion then they'll lose my support too because true conservatives will have been disenfranchised a-frigging-gain!

And iDave, you clueless, slime encrusted mostly invertebrate, if you could lower yourself to listen to the Tory Party's former grass roots support, we are NOT bloody racists for wanting to protect our borders and preserve our culture from the posion that is multi-culti PC f***wittery! And, for good measure, you can stick your precious EU down your most disagreeable throat and choke on it.

An interesting possibility. If the Lib-Dems lose a lot of their support, particularly among the students that they betrayed regarding student loans, their will be a lot of young disillusioned voters at the next general election, plus those people who voted for one party & got a two headed 'push-me,pull-you' hybrid with no sense of direction & who don't wish to repeat the performance. Who could be wooed by a smart party with a charismatic leader, (that lets out the current main contenders), yes, a vote for UKIP could be a winner to those who are currently don't knows, or don't cares!.

In response to The Way of Dodo, No my congregation is not monochrome, and no, I would not of course advise immigrants legally here to return to their country of origin. Both as an obligation and as a delight the Christian loves his neighbour, whoever he is and wherever he comes from.

This, however, does not alter the fundamental point that the open doors immigration policy of recent years does not constitute a conformity to God's purposes. Nations, according to Scripture, do and should control their borders.

You wrote, “If you're basing this opinion on the bible you will have to demonstrate how it contradicts scripture”.

As well as Acts 17:26 and Number 20:17, we see God’s ordaining of nationhood in Genesis 10, where v32states : “These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood”.

Nationhood is God’s wise means of countering humanistic, anti-God solidarity and regional/global totalitarianism. This is the message of the Tower of Babel affair recorded in Genesis 11.

Nationhood is further endorsed in the Bible by the apostle Paul’s special burden and concern for his own countrymen as seen in Romans 9:1-5.

UKIP need to play this one subtly. One option is to ‘go along with it’ as such.

What is needed is a thundering speech to clear the air. Allow the Inspector General…

“They call us racist because we seek to put Britain first. Above the interests of Greece, Portugal, Italy, and Germany and France. They call us racist because we see our public services straining under the influx of new immigrants to this country, and the majority of those are from the EU. They call us racist because we want British jobs for Britons. They call us racist because we recognise the housing shortage in this country is getting worse not better, and Britons are finding their place in the queue taken by a more deserving immigrant family. SOMETHING MUST BE DONE AND DONE NOW”

[PAUSE FOR APPLAUSE]

“This is not racism, it is common sense. It is what the people of the country want, it is what the country needs. It is the right way forward. IT IS RECLAIMING OUR OWN BORDERS.”

[PAUSE FOR APPLAUSE]

“We are living in days of need in this country. Our money leaves these shores to prop up the likewise needy peoples of Europe. This is not right. It cannot be right. AND IT IS NOT RACIST TO THINK THIS !!!”

There's also a certain type of small-minded bureaucratic multiculturalism espoused by LibDem fan boys/girls/people-of-all-genders-and-none on the left of the party, which I'd argue was itself intrinsically racist, relying as it does on the perpetuation of race and ethnicity as insurmountable difference.

It's precisely what leads to the kind of hackneyed (and Hackney) policies that people of one ethnicity should be treated differently (i.e. preferably) over others. What the advocates of such policies often simply fail to comprehend, is that when you set a lower standard of behaviour or attainment for a particular ethnicity or cultural group, you are not doing them a favour, you are institutionalising the idea that they are somehow unable to meet the standards that apply to everyone else.

It's not only insulting, but it speaks enormously to the mindset of a particular element of our cultural elite, which very often fails to detect the heavy irony in its oft-touted statements that "racism is still with us".

It's very easy to forget that some of the most contentious issues for social conservatives have been passed into Law - in both the US and the UK - under the watch of Libertarian conservative parties.

The only point of difference is that being Libertarian, it is unlikely that UKIP will want to promote these issues via the State - which makes them marginally more tolerable, at least in terms of press releases, than Labour and the increasingly paternalistic Cameron-led Tories.

One of the problems of immigration is you get people you would really not want to live near. Races who prey on the native population and races who act as parasites. Objecting to this is not racist, it’s common sense. How many of you people here would object if a prisoner / drug addicts rehabilitation centre was built in your street ?

It sounds to me you're advocating good old fashioned nationalism to me and (mis)using the bible to jusify this and have a rant against current EU immigration policies.

Your interpretation of the Genesis account of Babel as representing the early phase of human history is contradicted by basic science. You also tie yourelf up somewhat when expounding on the United Kingdom. I doubt the original and seperate Celtic peoples of Ireland, Wales or Scotland shared your views.

"Where cousins live adjacent to one another, and where they share a common faith in the Trinitarian God, a union of tribes into a single nation is perfectly compatible with God's overall purpose. Such a union is not the creation of a supranational empire, which history shows are usually God-rejecting Babels, but it represents a desire to be a single people who are working out their corporate destiny before the Lord."

Well, I suppose, if you're Protestant, it is.

"We must also observe the evidence furnished by God's providence concerning the union of the four constituent elements of the UK. Our observation of the history of Great Britain and Northern Ireland forces us to acknowledge that this distinctly Protestant Christian union of peoples has been mightily owned and blessed of God ... in the last three centuries the union of the four tribes of these islands under the banner of Christ the King has experienced the hand of God's obvious and abundant favour."

So really what your arguing for is the preservation of a Protestant nation and protection against 'incomers' who might have a different faith or, Lord above, may even be Eastern Orthodox Christians or Roman Catholic.

If Peter Simpson's interpretation of the Genesis account of Babel is literal (which I am guessing it is, judging by the context of your argument), then he is to be applauded on taking such a stance. The Bible is either the Word of God or just another collection of books. I subscribe to the former view, scientific theories can ebb and flow, but the Bible will stand the test of time. I base by soul's future on what is written in God's Word, I can think of no safer foundation, can you?

The same applies to you. The argument is that nations only prosper who follow God's ordinances (hard to disagree with) but this is the Protestant way (not so easy to support) and, for example, Northern Ireland was predestined to come under Protestant control and the United Kingdom to sread the (Protestant) word of God.

Protestant evangelicals Christian account of mnatinhood is that the Reformation began a process whereby saved Christian men founded colonies in the New and Old World and spread spiritual and political freedom - from Rome. The United Kingdom, IS seen as an inherently Protestant place spearheaded this movement.

I am most certainly not a supporter of Respect and agree greater control of Britain's borders should be reestablished for political, social and economic reasons - not theological ones.

The smallest nation in the world is, of course, the greatest nation in the world. Although the Catholic Church has a 2,000-year history, Vatican City State was established in 1929, to guarantee that the Holy See and the Pope could freely carry out their spiritual mission of confirming Christians in the faith and guiding the universal church. The transition from the Papal States to nationhood was a long and bumpy road.

We can see the fruits of political control over the Protestant Church in England and the consequences of competing and contradictory protestant denominations for the world.

Dodo. Let Christians stand together to defend this nation, whatever flavour they may be. Rather too late to be sectarian about it, and we must remember that this country has been overwhelmingly protestant for half a millennia. Meanwhile, all hands on deck and sound the alarm, what !

Calling out Protestant England for the fruits of politics whilst praising the Papal States is not the natural route I'd have chosen personally.

I'll go one better: the Church has always turned for the worse where it has prostituted itself for temporal power and worldly status. This doesn't mean the Church can never be involved in worldly power, or that we must abjure the courts of kings and princes (and Parliaments) out of some misplaced fear of politics. But it does mean being circumspect about the times when we are there.

I'd say much of the rot set in when respective Popes decided they rather liked the trappings of a secular prince. And most of the worst excesses of religious bigotry, persecution, and thought-control have occurred when secular rulers have found an easy ally for their politics in the Church.

One of the tenets of the anti racist bandwagon is that you should not discriminate about 'where people are from' and this could be the next street to you.

Village-ism is an early and still present manifestation of Darwinian self protection. Like them buggers down at Lower Bottom Hollow being a load of thieving bastards. So we don't want 'em marryin' our gals and getting a toe hold here!

Discrimination is the life blood of civilisation. Without choice and decisions we would still be in caves.

The PC'ists and politicards do not want us to choose. They want us to be like mannequins is some shop window. Look nice but please be dead. We will give you new clothes and even if you are really nice promote you to a top Oxford Street store. But dummies you are and dummies you shall remain!

"Does Lord Lavendon know that your are lording-it-up whilest he is on his hols? Cheeky behaviour I'd say. And you can put that cigar out as well. Blogger is a virtual smoke free zone don't you know."

What Lavers doesn't know doesn't hurt him.

Dodo:

"The enemy of my enemy may well be my friend for a time."

Or, conversely: whoever is not against you is for you.

On my comment - I have come to a place where I do not regard with much favour the ecclesial actions of Henry VIII - but then again, I don't much like their earlier parallel under Henry V (who might just as easily have gone a similar route if given cause and a longer life). Or for that matter under Henry IV, under whom ecclesial politics were at their most vicious. On the other hand, casting about towards Rome (and of course Avignon) there isn't much virtue to be had there either.

At the parish level - at the level of the monasteries and the hospitals, the nunneries and the anchorholds - the picture is a good deal more heartening. But then, I don't struggle to find myself in communion with such folks - whose spiritual descendants may still be found in many an English church.

I have been reflecting on Ephesians in the last few days. A similar question seems to have preoccupied the Gentiles and the Jews in the early Church - and it was a question to which either side offered different answers.

"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility." (Ephesians 2:13-15)

So I think I should say that in the first instance that the division is a grievous wound to the body of Christ, but in the second, that it was to be wounded that He came to earth, and that He took on Himself what should destroy us. Christ on the Cross, bleeding for our salvation is the hope we share, and so unity. Christ on the Cross is the guarantee that though the Church has been mauled inflicting with division by the prowling lion, it yet stands triumphant across eternity.

This is why I voted UKIP at the last general election knowing full well that in a Tory/LibDem marginal I might be 'letting the liberal in'. That is what happened. Nice to notice that they are beginning to recognise it.

If David Cameron doesn't like me and a million others doing this again in 2015, he knows what he has to do. but as a dyed in the wool liberal, he won't do it. So he can pay the price.

It should have been David Davis. Read Peter Hitchens 'The Cameron Delusion' to find out why it wasn't.

Dodo wrote, "Your interpretation of the Genesis account of Babel as representing the early phase of human history is contradicted by basic science".

I beg to disagree, Sir. Basic science confirms a young earth, for there is no known and currently observable mutation that produces additional information to the genome. Therefore, microbe to man evolution is impossible and the Genesis timeline of man's early history about 6000 years ago must be true.

So God's command in Genesis 11 that the people disperse into nations is thoroughly applicable to our present debate, confirming as it does God's stamp upon the institution of the nation.

Also, the genealogy of our Lord in Luke 3 traces His descent back to a literal Adam over just a few thousand years.

The Biblical endorsement of nationhood and controlled borders is further seen in Deuteronomy 32:8 - "The Most High divided to the nations their inheritance ... He separated the sons of Adam ... He set the bounds of the people".

I am not a theologian, nor a scientist so won't comment on the 'young earth' hypothesis.

However, isn't it said in the bible the Jews will rule the earth once the Messiah arrives? As Christians, we believe He has and we await His return in Glory. Until then isn't His Kingdom worldwide through His Spirit and His Body the Church?

I also recollect Jesus, when asked "who is my neighbour" answered in a parable indicating there were to be no divisions amongst people, religious or national.

It seems to me your idea of 'nationhood' is nationalism and the unity you talk about is unity through the spreading of the Protestant understanding of Christianity. In itself, Protestantism is divided except in one matter - resistance to Catholicism which you imply in your article is seeking a world order that is Satanic.

Peter Simpson. A quiet word in your ear. Don’t believe everything you read in the bible is how it happened. You will {AHEM} appear as a bit of an unquestioning fool if you do. And we can’t have that said about you old fellow, can we ?

If you want to know what the Bible is saying ask the Author. John 16:12-15

12 "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

Dodo wrote, “Until then isn't His Kingdom worldwide through His Spirit and His Body the Church?”

No, the Lord’s kingdom is not ‘worldwide’ in a physical sense, because it is not an earthly kingdom at all, as He Himself said in John 18:36. Yes, it is made up of people of every tribe and tongue, but it is a spiritual kingdom, and as such was never meant to be a pattern for the organisation of earthly societies post-Pentecost.

Christ’s kingship over His church in no way means that we should no longer have separate earthly kings and governments over nations.

In short, the Gospel was never designed to destroy God’s direction to men to form into nations given in Genesis 11. Indeed, the New Testament actually upholds the authority of earthly national governments. It is the churches’ conformity to liberal secularism and internationalist Marxist ideas which have made many Christians doubt the validity of nationhood.

You wrote, “I also recollect Jesus, when asked "who is my neighbour" answered in a parable indicating there were to be no divisions amongst people, religious or national”.

This, with respect, was not the Lord’s answer in the parable (Luke 10:25-37. His answer was, Show your obedience to the command to love your neighbour by doing something practical, not like the priests and Levites (representing the religious establishment) who walked by on the other side, but like the Samaritan (despised by the establishment) who helped the wounded man. The parable is an attack upon meaningless external religion, and says absolutely nothing about multiculturalism or the abolition of nationhoood.

You wrote re the Bible, “Do we take every word literally as some fundamentalists do? Or does scripture require a more discerning approach?”

Prophecy must be read as prophecy, historical narrative as historical narrative, symbolism as symbolism, poetry as poetry (e.g. the Psalms are poetry, although the poetry deals with real history and gives us infallible doctrine), but it is all God’s word, directly given by the Spirit, and without error.

A belief in the Bible’s inerrancy was the position of Christ Himself, who frequently used the expression “It is written” to enforce His teaching. In the case of the early chapters of Genesis, they are neither poetry nor symbolism, but historical narrative, and so must be interpreted as such.

Dodo. One expects the earth is much much older than 6000 years. 8000 years ago, the ice melted and flooded what is now the Mediterranean. The displaced people there sailed northwards, once out of the straits of Gibraltar, and among other places colonised the now habitable Ireland. And the ‘black’ Irish began their story which lasts until today...

The Irish for human excrement is the same as the Maltese. And no, there is no coincidence...

However, isn't it said in the bible the Jews will rule the earth once the Messiah arrives (Indeed..so good so far!)? As Christians, we believe He has (Where, When, Have I missed It???)and we await His return in Glory. Until then isn't His Kingdom (Define Kingdom as you refer to it?) worldwide through His Spirit and His Body the Church (err..Rome??)?

I also recollect Jesus, when asked "who is my neighbour" answered in a parable indicating there were to be no divisions amongst people, religious or national (Ah, Luke 10:25-37..Shall we see if you are correct in your loose application of said verses as true biblical Christianity is about believing correct doctrine and out of that belief is manifest mercy and our care of others.?

Here is a Lawyer who knew all the right answers to Jesus’ questions but was lacking the behavior that knowing these truths should produce. Knowing the right answers and being a Christian are not the same thing, sweet bird, are they. This man in Luke who asked the questions, knew the answers but was not a follower of Christ.,,Hmmm

Luke tells us that this Lawyer has a loaded question for Jesus. The Lawyer really didn’t genuinely care to hear an answer for himself but was trying to trip up Jesus in His words… to put him 'to the test'. He wanted to see if Jesus’ response was in line with what the Scribes and Pharisees taught on the subject of Eternal Life.

Jesus answers, basically, What does the Bible say? Old Ernst loves His answer as it is the definitive step to take, when people ask questions that we don’t give our opinions but simply take them to God’s Word!!.

The answer given is the summary of the Law of God as given to us in Deuteronomy.

Deut 6:5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. He adds also to love your neighbor, which is the spirit and practical aspect of loving God.

When Jesus said do this, what He means is that eternal life is given by God to His people. A way one knows he/she has eternal life is that the Spirit of God equips us to love God and love others. So when Jesus tells this Lawyer to do this, what He is saying is that eternal life comes to us by God and we manifest this life as we love God and love others. In loving others, we prove the condition of our soul.

Jesus is not saying that if you start loving others then God will give you eternal life.

In Luke's account we are introduced to two more people in the parable who knew all the answers but were not loving God and loving others.Do notice the Samaritan doesn’t pray and ask God who my neighbor is. He doesn’t turn his head and walk around. Rather he exhibits love for God as he cares for this man.

Do you see the stark difference between the Lawyer who only wanted to do the minimum to be accepted by God and the Samaritan who just cared for this man because for him, loving others was a manifestation of his love for God. The pouint of the parable is it is possible for a lost man to have all the right answers BUT…).

It seems to me your idea of 'nationhood' is nationalism and the unity you talk about is unity through the spreading of the Protestant understanding of Christianity. In itself, Protestantism is divided except in one matter - resistance to Catholicism which you imply in your article is seeking a world order that is Satanic.

Deuteronomy and Leviticus show how the 'Alien in the land' is to be treated!

There were 4 types associated with the 'stranger'..the nokri, the ger,the zar and the toshabh. Each of these groups refer to different relationships which existed between foreigners and the Israelites and demonstrate a graduation from “fear” to “respect”.

Zar apparently referred to enemy aliens or a foreign race with no rights whatever in Israel.

Nokri or ben hanekar indicated foreigners who passed through as merchants or travelers, or who might be people residing in the “promised land” – Canaanites,Mohabites or Ammonites; foreigners who were members of opposing groups of people and who did not follow the religion of Israel. They were people to be avoided.

Toshabh, however, was used to identify aliens or estranged foreigners who were accepted into Jewish society, albeit with limited rights. For example, the Law of Jubilee did not apply to the toshabh.

Gerim referred to those strangers who not only resided with the Israelite people but who were more fully integrated into Jewish society. It originated from the word ger - ger as “the alien to berespected” and under the Torah they were to have special protection and equality of justice with the native Israelites. “the status and privileges of the gherim derive from the bond of hospitality in which a guest is inviolable, with claims of protection and full sustenance IN RETURN FOR LOYALTY.” Perhaps Rev Simpson is trying to qualify how we should view the strangers coming in our country as all strangers do NOT necessarily offer loyalty in return, do they??!!

Then you state "The Kingdom of Christ has no national or spiritual boundaries." Is this what your Popes believed when they claimed authority over these imaginary boundaries to crown or depose, to bless or curse...Or have I misunderstood?

Ernst

ps

Rev Simpson..

You will now find the Dodo wandering off in search of grasping Young Earth hypotheses and arguments rather than address your main points..A heads up, old boy.

Dodo really isn't going to bother engaging on this 'old' topic. He's decided to spend his time more productively.

My main point was the suggestion that the Catholic Church was attempting to set up a one world religion that is Satanic and goes against God's division of the nations. The good old protestants facilitated national divisions, independence and identity in opposition to Rome.

Rev Simpson"The Biblical endorsement of nationhood and controlled borders is further seen in Deuteronomy 32:8 - "The Most High divided to the nations their inheritance ... He separated the sons of Adam ... He set the bounds of the people".A 'State' and a 'Nation' are not the same thing. The Karens are a nation but they have no state,as do a number of other groups which include Mapuche and Kurds.Nation-states are a recent creation of history and only in western Europe did borders include those culturally homogeneous.InspectorThe whites who went to Africa(and America) were settlers not immigrants.

"Dodo really isn't going to bother engaging on this 'old' topic. He's decided to spend his time more productively." Aaaw. I was hoping you might answer something else that the catholics (Roman!) throw at us.

Then you state "The Kingdom of Christ has no national or spiritual boundaries." Is this what your Popes believed when they claimed authority over these imaginary boundaries to crown or depose, to bless or curse...Or have I misunderstood?..Then was Adrian IV who to this day remains the only English-born Pope, and, for the Irish (*Chortles*), not speaking ex cathedra when issuing the bull about 'national' boundaries and papal authority to declare within them or to them..authorised English King Henry II (born in France!!), who had petitioned him for it, the right to invade Ireland.. "for the correction of morals and the introduction of virtues, for the advancement of the Christian religion." ?

This then led to the perceived perpetual and unconditional English occupation of Ireland.

Adrian wrote: "And may the people of that land receive thee with honor, and venerate thee as their master: provided always that the rights or the churches remain inviolate and entire, and saving to St. Peter and the holy Roman Church the annual pension of one penny from each house." It appears so long as Rome was getting it's cut..the 'Kings Shilling', boundaries could be defined and ignored by Rome and it's popes as the mood so grabbed them.

Did Adrian think the "Donation of Constantine" was a forgery will never be known, but it seems likely that Adrian IV believed it was legitimate and as Popes are infallible and led by the Holy Spirit, it must be right!! ;-)

An article titled "Medieval Dominicans And the Irish Language," records that Pope John XXII, a Frenchman, wrote, in 1317: "to the archbishops of Dublin and Cashel, and the Dean of Dublin. Mandate to warn Friars Preachers and other mendicant religious, and rectors, vicars and chaplains of parish churches in Ireland to DESIST from stirring up the people of that country to resist the KING'S Authority : those who disobey this monition are to be EXCOMMUNICATED. Full powers are given to the said Archbishops and dean to do whatever they shall see fit in pursuance of this MANDATE."

Ooooh Begorra!

Blofeld.

ps

JKL

"Which man made political construct was God favouring before then? " From the above, whichever political construct the Popes favoured?!The KEYS, dear boy, THE KEYS!!

"A pretty maid, a Protestant, was to a Catholic wed;.To love all Bible truths and tales, quite early she'd been bred.It sorely grieved her husband's heart that she would not comply,And join the Mother Church of Rome and heretics deny.

So day by day he flattered her, but still she saw no good,Would ever come from bowing down to idols made of wood;.The mass, the host, the miracles, were made but to deceive;.And transubstantiation, too, she'd never dare believe.

He went to see his clergyman and told him his sad tale,"My wife's an unbeliever, sir, you can perhaps prevail;.For all your Romish miracles my wife has strong aversion,To really work a miracle may lead to her conversion."

The priest went with the gentleman--he thought to gain a prize.He said, "I will convert her, sir, and open both her eyes."So when they came into the house, the husband loudly cried,"The priest has come to dine with us!" "He's welcome," she replied.

And when, at last, the meal was o'er, the priest at once began,To teach his hostess all about the sinful state of man;.The greatness of our Savior's love, which Christians can't deny,To give Himself a sacrifice and for our sins to die.

The priest did come accordingly, the bread and wine did bless.The lady asked, "Sir, is it changed?" The priest answered, "Yes,It's changed from common bread and wine to truly flesh and blood;.**Begorra**, lass, this power of mine has changed it into God!"

So having blessed the bread and wine, to eat they did prepare;.The lady said unto the priest, "I warn you to take care,For half an ounce of arsenic was mixed right in the batter,But since you have its nature changed, it cannot really matter."

The priest was struck real dumb--he looked as pale as death.The bread and wine fell from his hands and he did gasp for breath."Bring me my horse!" the priest cried, "This is a cursed home!"The lady replied, "Begone; tis you who shares the curse of Rome."

The husband, too, he sat surprised, and not a word did say.At length he spoke, "My dear," said he, "The priest has run away;.To gulp such mummery and tripe, I'm not, for sure, quite able;.I'll go with you and will renounce this Roman Catholic Fable." If only twas true!!

"I was actually looking forward to a discussion on the age of the earth / Pseudoscience etc." It is possible to discuss or address more than one subject in a comment box so knock yourself out, my sweet lassie..What would you bring to the party other than your pretty self?

Your Grace,Hear Hear Inspector @18:07Well said @ 22:17I find it incredulous that our Foster Care industry employs the thought police to determine the suitability of the carers. Wanting to maintain some balance of indigenous people and immigrants is surely not racist?As to the PM calling UKIP members mostly racist, I can't believe that no retribution is possible.The stoic allegiance of His Grace to the Conservative party is risible considering his own attacks on their policies and the realisation that they will never be changed from within.

How about the Black Sea as it exists today being created when the ice caps melted at the end of the last Ice Age when rising water in the recently created Mediterranean Sea rushed though the Dardanelles? At the eastern end the at the Bosphorus was an enormous waterfall pouring water into a much lower Black Sea with the level slowly rising displacing the civilization existing there? Remnants of villages and farms have been discovered in water as deep as 300 feet in the Black Sea? This means those villages and farms existed about 9,000 years ago... Could this be the event that gave us the story of Noah? The people who lived in what must have been an idea climate spread north into Russia and west into Europe, south to Mesopotamia and possibly as far as Egypt, east to what became Persia and India, and west to Turkey and possibly Greece.

11:35BlowfartThe ballad form is old hat.Disappointed with this one .. recycled Oscar Wilde resonating in bitchy spiteful voice.

You are good at the more surreal insane type of verse which is very funny.This is very difficult to write so I suspect you are naturally gifted in this genre.

Clip clopping Calamity Cressie Getcha Gun is rescinding the offer of a hose shower at your incineration. Your heresy on transubstantiation and other matters means the geriatric is for burning.

PSAre you trying to make a point about mixed marriages?You paint a very unflattering portrait of the Protestant woman in your poem.Not all Protestant women have dalliances with priests you know and hardly any of them poison people.

What would I bring to the party apart from me (and my sisters, brothers and friends)? Well, as Hanukkah is only a couple of weeks away and as I am all into inter faith dialogue, Kosher mulled wine and mince pies....

“With his Sola Scriptura stuff he postulates that God favours a political entity, to wit, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which came into being in its present form circa 1922. Which man-made political construct was God favouring before then?”

I do not postulate God’s favouring of any political entity over and above that entity’s allegiance to the faith of Christ -“Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34).

I do believe that God mightily saved this nation in 1940 and that contributory factors to this were the two national days of prayer in the same year and the residual spiritual capital still then prevalent in the nation.

That capital had its origins in the18th century Evangelical Awakening (Wesley and Whitefield) and in the strong influence of Biblical Christianity on the national consciousness throughout much of the 19th century.

Manfarang wrote, “Nation-states are a recent creation of history and only in western Europe did borders include those culturally homogeneous”.

Courteously, Genesis 10:32 says differently. Also, may I refer you to the existence of Israel, beginning with Abraham, and coming to full fruition around 1400BC. In Isaiah chapters 13 to 23 we have separate prophetic announcements concerning the futures of ten different nations : Babylon, Palestina, Moab, Syria, Ethiopia, Egypt, Edom, Arabia, Judah and Tyre. Isaiah was writing about 700BC.

So nation states were well and truly established outside of western Europe throughout the pre-Christian era.

How desperately we need Christians today desiring to see this nation repent of its sin and return to Christ. How we must pray that He might yet have mercy upon us.

Yet the Body of Christ is the Body of Christ. Its head is Jesus Christ Himself who says that our prayers are most efficacious when two or more are gathered in His name. Which way to go? The Way of Dodo or the Way of Jesus? It's a tough one.

The same place you dug up all those little "gems" donated by St Helena of Constantinople and her son!Ebayzantium.Con..the catholic-to-catholic corporation You can get anything there! Founded in 327 AD, Ebayzantium is one of the notable success stories of the Roman Catholic Church @.Con

"The moment the chuckle tinkles in the recollection box of a sinner, a soul flies out of Rome." Ernst Blofeld..Changing a sinners mind, page 5.

"To those waiting with bated breath for that favourite Roman Catholic catchphrase, "Burn the Heretic" , I have only one thing to say: You Fry if you want to. The Geriatrics's not for Burning!"

Look for to hearing something from 'Cressie get your gun.. How about "Doin' What Comes Natur'lly" where Cressie sings jokingly about how Cressie's Catholic family and their community live happy lives despite their lack of a good religious education and, often, money, due to paying (donating) for their many sins on a day by day basis.

Ernst fav: "Anything You Can Do...." Yes I Can, Yes I Can, YES I CAN..;-O

"Are you plagerizing Oscar Wilde now? Please Remember that he converted to Roman Catholicism on his death bed in Paris. There is still hope for you yet *Choking on me crumpet sound*." What's with all this Oscar Wilde stuff..It was an 'anon' poem if you did but check!!

A wealthy old lady decides to go on a photo safari in Africa, taking her faithful, elderly hound named Blowey, along for the company.

One day the old Dog starts chasing butterflies and before long, Blowey discovers that he's lost (mild dementia!). Wandering about, he notices a leopard heading rapidly in his direction with the intention of having lunch.

The old hound thinks, "Oh, oh! I'm in deep doo-doo now!" Noticing some bones on the ground close by, he immediately settles down to chew on the bones with his back to the approaching cat. Just as the leopard is about to leap the old dog exclaims loudly, "Boy, that was one delicious leopard! I wonder if there are any more around here?"

Hearing this, the young leopard halts his attack in mid-strike, a look of terror comes over him and he slinks away into the trees. "Whew!", says the leopard, "That was close! That old hound nearly had me!"

Meanwhile, a monkey who had been watching the whole scene from a nearby tree, figures he can put this knowledge to good use and trade it for protection from the leopard. So off he goes, but the old dog sees him heading after the leopard with great speed, and figures that something must be up.

The monkey soon catches up with the leopard, spills the beans (the scoundrel) and strikes a deal for himself with the leopard.

The young leopard is furious at being made a fool of and says, "Here, monkey, hop on my back and see what's going to happen to that conniving canine!

Now, the old doddering fella sees the leopard coming with the monkey on his back and thinks, "What am I going to do now?", but instead of running, the dog sits down with his back to his attackers, pretending he hasn't seenthem yet, and just when they get close enough to hear, the old codger says...

"Where's that damn monkey? I sent him off an hour ago to bring me another leopard!

Moral of this story for the RC's on the blog...

Don't ever mess with the old dogs...age and skill will always overcome youth and treachery! Bullsh*t and brilliance only ever come with age and experience. :-)

Don't be ridiculous Bloweoulf,your bullshit could never baffle brains. Anyone who can be seduced with a couple of mince pies is a pushover.Everyone knows I don't do conversions otherwise with a Christmas pudding and a lolly pop I could join you up in a flash,especially with all that Yank midwestern sweet talk and designer hair cut hints that I learnt from Karl KOol.

I think if you do your research you might discover those relics and holy sites Constantine's mother, St Helena, discovered in Jerusalem around 320 AD might very well have be authentic. The reason being is those sites had not been disturbed over the 300 years of persecution of Christians by the pagan Romans and others who had occupied what was Jerusalem during those three centuries. When she visited the city Jerusalem had a very small population. There were no shrines or churches built over the Christian Holy sites like the Holy Sepulcre. When St. Helena first saw it the tomb looked almost exactly as it did when Jesus was buried and rose from the dead in it. Jerusalem at the time of St Helena was virtually the same city it was after the time of Christ even considering the Romans had leveld the temple in 60 AD. I don't need relics to enhance my faith but what St Helena found preserved may have in fact been the real stuff. Even the True Cross which she alledgedly found in a pit could easily have survied in that dry climate. Don't forget the Dead Sea scrolls which were discovered almost in perfect condition were over 2,000 years old when discovered in a cave a few miles south of Jerusalem in 1946 -1956.When ancient things are found disguarded centuries later in a place legend says they were once stored the items could be authentic. Even archeologists are starting to give credit to what St Helena may have found.

Of course after almost 1,700 of being built over and then destroyed by Muslims in the 7th century and again rebuilt the sites are unreconizable.

"Don't ever mess with the old dogs...age and skill will always overcome youth and treachery! Bullsh*t and brilliance only ever come with age and experience. :-)"

Ernsty's Fables for the Febble Minded.

Now who would want to mess with a mangy, flea infested mutt?

Besides, a true leopard, properly raised, would not have been fooled by this ridiculous ploy. As for the monkey, well he clearly lacked any basic common sense. The leopard would have had him as the second course after feasting on the old dog.

So you hate Catholics len. So what!We are used to it. A lot of people do.It's not a big deal.

What bothers you is that you are not supposed to. Because as a Christian you are not suppose to hate anyone.This much you have learnt.I know it must be difficult because most Protestants are raised to mistrust(euphemism) Catholics...it's in mother's milk so to speak.

Alas, with your limited intellect you are very impressionable with the anti Catholic rubbish that you are gleaning from the internet.You pretend very unconvincingly that it is the religion you hate and not the 2 billion followers who "walk around in a demonic trance."

You will do anything to seek attention len..even claimingthat I am persecuting poor dear Ernsty who chivvies me like an old stoat. No one minds a bit of good humoured biffo from time to time.

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)